Ron Paul and Gay Adoption

[Tdcci]

My opinion is based on the fact that human beings have evolved such that a single female and a single male of the species are required for reproduction.

You could have one man and five women, and the other way around. The idea of monogamy is pretty modern.

For that reason, I believe it is important for children to be exposed to a parental model that can teach them a reproductive strategy that will help them succesfully become parents themselves.

What do you mean expose, same sex parents are not likely to shield their children to different ideas and free thought, it's the religious that do this. Children don't need to be taught to reproduce, it's in their genes.

I'm not convinced that two same sex parents are demonstrating an effective reproductive strategy that will assist their adopted child in developing a successful reproductive adult life of their own.

They can, but they don't need to.

So I'm not real thrilled with the idea of widespread gay adoption and total equality between gay adoption and adoption by heterosexual parents.

Do you support a ban on same-sex adoption?

I certainly don't support taking children away from their parents, whether they're gay or straight.

Nobody wants the government to do that. This is a very arrogant thing to say.

 

[Fox McCloud]

there's a particular bill that Ron Paul introduced in the 80's IIRC that singled out gay adoption. It wasn't restricting them, and it had entirely everything to do with not subsidizing anything, but it was very interesting that he singled just that out (when he could have done more).

Either way, it's ultimately a State issue, and I suspect that's what Ron would say....though, how would he vote for it in the state of Texas? I'm not entirely sure to be honest, but from several of his other comments and statements in the past...I'm going to say he'd vote against it.

when he was speaking at the "value voters" debate, he said mentioned that marriage shouldn't even be in the hands of the States, and that "We should define it" (yes, he emphasized "we")...considering the group he was in, it does have certain implications.

He also said, of marriage "anyone who questions what marriage is should just look it up in the dictionary" then he chuckled.

I tend to agree with his point--it's one of the few Libertarian principles I probably will never 100% "give in to", so to speak.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

The majority? Is this a Democracy or a Republic?

When I wrote my statement I did not mean to construct an opinion but I was trying to read what is happening on the ground.
Bush was elected because of democracy or whatever you like to call it and therefore I hate this kind of democracy that gives the right to a group of people to decide the fate of another group.
If 51% chose Bush then only this 51% should be the people who obey this so called "president", and if he decides to go to war, then only the people from this 51% should be drafted. And the same concept should be applied to any other issue.

 

[Tdcci]

When I wrote my statement I did not mean to construct an opinion but I was trying to read what is happening on the ground.
Bush was elected because of democracy or whatever you like to call it and therefore I hate this kind of democracy that gives the right to a group of people to decide the fate of another group.
If 51% chose Bush then only this 51% should be the people who obey this so called "president", and if he decides to go to war, then only the people from this 51% should be drafted. And the same concept should be applied to any other issue.

There are a few problems with that. Bush won the electoral vote, not the popular vote. The power to declare war is delegated to the Congress. If you're not gay, and you're not up for adoption, it doesn't affect you. You're just trying to control someone else, sounds like tyranny to me.

 

[Red Dingo]

My opinion is that I am not really into the idea of gay adoption... but then I think about it and kids get abused/molested every day by people who are their foster parents, parents, and step parents. So if being gay is the worst you can say about someone, I'd rather have them have the kids than someone who would hurt the kid.

I have mixed emotions about it, but thinking about it objectively, there are worse situations and if they want a kid and can help them live a healthy life, then I am all for it...

That's very fair and helpful to.

 

[mkeller]

You could have one man and five women, and the other way around. The idea of monogamy is pretty modern.

Yes, but at least one of each is required . . .

 

[Tdcci]

Yes, but at least one of each is required . . .

He didn't phrase it that way, he was promoting this mythical "basic family structure" which has never been the cultural norm.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

There are a few problems with that. Bush won the electoral vote, not the popular vote.

I do not see any difference here. Even if anybody else won the popular vote, he/she should not have the power to rule those who rejected him/her. That is just my view regarding democracy, I believe it is a sort of slavery which allows a group of people to rule others against their will.

 

[Tdcci]

I do not see any difference here. Even if anybody else won the popular vote, he/she should not have the power to rule those who rejected him/her. That is just my view regarding democracy, I believe it is a sort of slavery which allows a group of people to rule others against their will.

What form of government do you propose to replace it?

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

What form of government do you propose to replace it?

This needs alot of thinking and research, but I do not think there is currently any system able to satisfy this concept. The most important thing is to bring more people to start question, is democracy really fair? Once people start to question the system they will start to think in alternative, and if they do not find one, they will create one, this is the nature of human beings. There is something I am working on into my mind but it is not complete yet, so hopefully someday it will see the light. But definitely a smaller government is one step on the right track.

 

[Austin]

The best solution to this, in my eyes, is letting the birth mother choose.

 

[PaulineDisciple]

The first issue that you need to deal with in this debate is who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong. If a majority gets to decide then you get tyranny of the majority on all minorities. If a small group of leaders get to decide then you get tyranny of the oligarchy. If one man gets to decide then you get the tyranny of a dictator. If everyone gets to decide for themselves then you get the tyranny of anarchy. If God decides what is right and what is wrong then and only then can we have absolute, objective, invariant and immaterial laws such as moral laws that all men must obey. Of course you could admit, as some philosophers have admitted, that if God does not exist, there really are no absolute moral laws that exist.

As Cecil B. DeMille put it:
If man will not be ruled by God, he will certainly be ruled by tyrants--and there is no tyranny more imperious or more devastating than man's own selfishness, without the law.
The point being is that if God does not exist, we should just admit that everything is permissible, we may not personally like the “moral” choices that other people make, but who are we to condemn another person. This would reduce moral choices to the same category as a person’s personal choice between flavors of ice-cream.

Now someone is going to chime in, but we have a rational definition of right and wrong, the utilitarian standard of doing whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. To which the next logical question is, what instrument are we going to use to measure happiness and who gets to decide when the happiness of the majority outweigh the unhappiness of the minority? So here we are again, back to the tyranny of the majority.

Whatever argument you can bring up for morality without God, it will always result in a form of tyranny. With God in the equation, tyranny is condemned and can be lawfully resisted. This is how our founders determined that they were right in resisting the tyranny of King George. Without God in the equation then it is survival of the fittest and you may resist but if your not stronger than your opponent then it looks like your opponent is right.

So as all this pertains to the question of gay adoption, if God doesn’t exist then we should we let cannibals, murderers, rapists… adopt children and we should let no moral judgments whatsoever cross our minds for after all cannibalism, murder and rape has given the human species an evolutionary advantage to this point, so it should also give us an evolutionary advantage in the future.

If God does exist, then we had better listen to what he has to say in his word and obey lest we provoke Him to come and judge us by sending tyrants to rule over us and cause us to suffer his wrath not only in this life but also in the life to come.

As this pertains to Ron Paul’s position on this subject, he is absolutely correct, the federal government has no business dictating to the states how they should punish criminals and therefore on the federal level, our representatives should not even bring the question up because it falls outside of their jurisdiction.

 

[JohnM]

The best solution to this, in my eyes, is letting the birth mother choose.

Seems about right.

Surely the birth mother (perhaps in conjunction with the father) decides which adoption agency should handle the adoption, and the adoption agency can choose which criteria it uses to place the child. I really don't think that the state should have any say regarding which criteria adoption agencies should use.

If an adoption agency wants to place children with a homosexual couple, or an evangelical Christian couple, or a neo-nazi couple, that is their choice. (I'm sure that they would consult the birth mother, otherwise the birth mother would probably go to another agency.)

Whether Dr. Paul agrees with me, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did. He agrees with me on quite a few things.

 

[NaT805]

O.K. I think I have an idea what the answer to this is going to be and I'm not sure if I like it. But, to save everything RP's message stands for and puts and end to is much more important than this one issue. Though personally I am quite uncomfortable with it. Sorry if I come over offensive. I don't mean to be. It's just one of those things that my personal beliefs don't easily lend themselves to.
Any thoughts? I am aware of the reality that SO many heterosexual couples are bad parents. Well, this ones a doozy.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

- Thomas Jefferson

 

[SeanEdwards]

You could have one man and five women, and the other way around. The idea of monogamy is pretty modern.

Polygamy can be a successful reproductive strategy.

What do you mean expose, same sex parents are not likely to shield their children to different ideas and free thought, it's the religious that do this. Children don't need to be taught to reproduce, it's in their genes.

Reproduction may be in their genes, but parenting, and forming long term relationships that support a biologically compatible strategy for reproduction are not. Babies and young children deserve to learn through parental role example, that a successful reproductive strategy includes at least one man and one woman. The traditional monogamous marriage setup evolved in western society over many generations and has a long established pedigree. How many examples are there to endorse all the non-traditional family designs being experimented with widely in the Western world?

Truthfully, our liberal society has almost wiped out the notion of traditional families, where a mother and father both care for offspring. Children having two parents is unusual in America now. The norm is that most children do not have fathers. I'm not convinced this is such a wonderful march of progress and women's liberation, nor am I convinced that society should continue the trend by experimenting with widespread acceptance of additional new family structures.

Do you support a ban on same-sex adoption?

I would not go that far. I just don't want the same-sex stranger adoption to be evaluted as "just as good as" an adoption by an equally qualified heterosexual married couple.

Nobody wants the government to do that. This is a very arrogant thing to say.

Some people might want the government to do that. I just wanted to make clear that even though I had objections to same sex couples being the basis of a child-rearing organization, those objections had limits, and did not extend to calling all gay parents unfit to have children.

 

[SeanEdwards]

He didn't phrase it that way, he was promoting this mythical "basic family structure" which has never been the cultural norm.

I didn't intend to promote that. I don't personally have any objection to polygamy, as long as the participants are willing adults. In a polygamist household, children will still have the chance to experience parental role models that can help teach them a potentially successful model that they can use as an adult when finding their own reproductive role.

 

[Cinnaboo]

I would not go that far. I just don't want the same-sex stranger adoption to be evaluted as "just as good as" an adoption by an equally qualified heterosexual married couple.

So your qualms are only pertinent if there is a shortage of unwanted children?

 

[clsh]

understandable confusion

"I wouldn't want it going to a single mother or father, because I believe children have the best shot at becoming emotionally well-adjusted when they have both - for the same reason, I wouldn't want it going to a gay or lesbian couple (not because they're gay, but because there would be an inherent imbalance in the absence of either a mother or a father)."

It is always your choice to find and place your child in a safe home that you find suiting. But what you say here of parenting methods is a common misconception. I am a biology major at UCLA. Please trust me and my textbooks.

The biological truth is that single-parent-raised children are not less emotionally-adjusted or really any different at all, mentally or physically, than children raised by a man and woman, or a man and man, or a woman and woman, etc. The only reason its a good idea to have dual parents is because its easier for the parent to run the household environment. Having two parents of the same sex makes, therefore, no difference. The child remains uneffected.

Children also don't need male and female parents for any "reproductive understandings" as it is in their genetic make-up to reproduce. Humans are sexual beings. Children also don't need male and female parents to understand proper body functions and understanding of how to deal with thee opposite sex. Such claims are unsubstantiated and confusing

Finally, we live in communities as humans for a reason, to assist one another. Community makes it very possible for children to have many advantages in life.

Hopefully we've moved on from bizarre concerns about this subject such as morals playing a factor in the matter of same-sex parenting, as the children remain uneffected in this case as well.

 

[clsh]

I didn't intend to promote that. I don't personally have any objection to polygamy, as long as the participants are willing adults. In a polygamist household, children will still have the chance to experience parental role models that can help teach them a potentially successful model that they can use as an adult when finding their own reproductive role.

It is always your choice to find and place your child in a safe home that you find suiting. But what you say here and above of potentially successful movels of reproductive roles is a common misconception. I am a biology major at UCLA. Please trust me and my textbooks.

The biological truth is that single-parent-raised children are not less emotionally-adjusted or really any different at all, mentally or physically, than children raised by a man and woman, or a man and man, or a woman and woman, etc. The only reason its a good idea to have dual parents is because its easier for the parent to run the household environment. Having two parents of the same sex makes, therefore, no difference. The child remains uneffected.

Children also don't need male and female parents for any "reproductive understandings" as it is in their genetic make-up to reproduce. Humans are sexual beings. Children also don't need male and female parents to understand proper body functions and understanding of how to deal with thee opposite sex. Such claims are unsubstantiated and confusing

Finally, we live in communities as humans for a reason, to assist one another. Community makes it very possible for children to have many advantages in life.

Hopefully we've moved on from bizarre concerns about this subject such as morals playing a factor in the matter of same-sex parenting, as the children remain uneffected in this case as well.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Wow. This thread is nearly four years old!